Editorial: Tossing the baby into the floodwater

Published: Monday, July 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM.

There are noble intentions everywhere in the ongoing debate over reforming the federal flood insurance program.

The problems, as they often are, are in the details.

At the heart of the reforms passed by Congress last year is the desire to place the program on sound financial footing and to make it self-sustaining for generations to come.

If that were the end of it, those noble intentions would have the enthusiastic agreement of people all along the coast.

But that is not the end of it. Because the reforms force an end to grandfathering insurance prices and require that prices reflect the actual risk of flooding, many home and business owners face cripplingly steep increases that could make flood insurance coverage unaffordable for the very people who are most in need of it.

While that is somewhat encouraging, the larger issues of doing away with federal subsidies and grandfathering costs remain deeply disturbing.

The overall goal of returning the flood insurance program to fiscal responsibility is noble. Coastal
North Carolinians
and other Americans who live in danger of flooding deserve a program that they know will be around for the long run.

There are noble intentions everywhere in the ongoing debate over reforming the federal flood insurance program.

The problems, as they often are, are in the details.

At the heart of the reforms passed by Congress last year is the desire to place the program on sound financial footing and to make it self-sustaining for generations to come.

If that were the end of it, those noble intentions would have the enthusiastic agreement of people all along the coast.

But that is not the end of it. Because the reforms force an end to grandfathering insurance prices and require that prices reflect the actual risk of flooding, many home and business owners face cripplingly steep increases that could make flood insurance coverage unaffordable for the very people who are most in need of it.

While that is somewhat encouraging, the larger issues of doing away with federal subsidies and grandfathering costs remain deeply disturbing.

The overall goal of returning the flood insurance program to fiscal responsibility is noble. Coastal North Carolinians and other Americans who live in danger of flooding deserve a program that they know will be around for the long run.

However, after so many people for so long have depended on this subsidized coverage, change should come at a reasonable pace and should be implemented with an eye toward keeping the program affordable for the people who so desperately need it.

The problems go beyond current home and business owners. If these reforms make insurance unattainable for large numbers of people, the government will be left with what flood insurance is supposed to avoid — huge cleanup and recovery costs in the wake of future storms.

There has to be a way to get from where we are now to where the program needs to be without forcing out so many people by making the rates so exorbitantly high.

There have already been far too many tales of insurance bills going from several hundred dollars a year to tens of thousands of dollars.

Clearly, a scenario like that would defeat the primary purpose of the program, which is to avoid financial ruin.

Our congressional delegation will play an important role in the months to come in impressing on their colleagues the real consequences of the reforms in their current form.

It is no exaggeration to say that this issue could determine whether thousands of coastal residents lose most or all of their primary investments in their homes.

There simply must be a fix that slowly achieves the noble goals of the reforms without the disastrous effects these will have.